Poor Jyoti. Seems like everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure some good understanding will come out of this.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Andrew108 wrote:Jyoti, what do you think bodhicitta means within Dzogchen. What does it mean and what is it's role if any?

Bodhicitta points to bindu (明點） if I remember correctly, Bindu should be on the side of the body (dharmakaya), if one able to realize it, then it is liberation according to dzogchen. Dzogchen also has an esoteric path based on the physical body, where the ability to see the bindu physically is the requirement for progress.

It really doesn't, but there is nothing new in Buddhism for one tradition criticizing another based on incomplete understanding. Happens both ways.

"Men must want to do things out of their own innermost drives. People, not commercial organizations or chains of command, are what make great civilizations work. Every civilization depends upon the quality of the individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness - they cannot work and their civilization collapses."
- A letter to CHOAM, attributed to the Preacher

Andrew108 wrote:Jyoti, what do you think bodhicitta means within Dzogchen. What does it mean and what is it's role if any?

Bodhicitta points to bindu (明點） if I remember correctly, Bindu should be on the side of the body (dharmakaya), if one able to realize it, then it is liberation according to dzogchen. Dzogchen also has an esoteric path based on the physical body, where the ability to see the bindu physically is the requirement for progress.

Ok so now tell me what you think bodhicitta means in terms of your experience.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, as I said, Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind, vijñāna.

So you equate mind as consciousness (vijnana), to have nothing to do with consciousness, you would have nothing to do with the dhamadhatu and the trikaya, and your version of dzogchen would have no basis.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
Right, as I said, Dzogchen has nothing to do with mind, vijñāna.

So you equate mind as consciousness (vijnana), to have nothing to do with consciousness, you would have nothing to do with the dhamadhatu and the trikaya, and your version of dzogchen would have no basis.

If you assume the trikāya has something to do with vijñāna, then you would be correct. But that is not how the trikāya is understood in Dzogchen.

You need to read Primordial Experience, and understand how the Dzogchen tradition treats the cittamatra school and its doctrines so that you may correctly differentiate them. Otherwise, you will merely continue down this path of confusing yourself and others.

M

Last edited by Malcolm on Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Malcolm wrote:
If you assume the trikāya has something to do with vijñāna, then you would be correct. But that is not how the trikāya is understood in Dzogchen.

You need to read Primordial Experience, and understand how the Dzogchen tradition treats the cittamatra school and its doctrines so that you may correctly differentiate them. Otherwise, you will merely continue down this path of confusing yourself and others.

Malcolm wrote:
If you assume the trikāya has something to do with vijñāna, then you would be correct. But that is not how the trikāya is understood in Dzogchen.

You need to read Primordial Experience, and understand how the Dzogchen tradition treats the cittamatra school and its doctrines so that you may correctly differentiate them. Otherwise, you will merely continue down this path of confusing yourself and others.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Andrew108 wrote:
Ok so now tell me what you think bodhicitta means in terms of your experience.

It means the awakening intentionality that is in concordance with the reason (meaning).

Is this your experience? Really? I would have expected you to say that the experience of bodhicitta, in a Dzogchen sense, cannot be described by words. But you have been able to describe something. To me this demonstrates a flaw in your approach to Dzogchen. I don't mean to be mean spirited. I just think it would be to your benefit to look into these issues a but more.
We need the transmission. The direct introduction. So we need the guru. Then we need to practice. We need to be active and to intelligently reason things out. But we cannot manufacture realization through intellectual inference. This is how it is in Dzogchen. We are going past or beyond mind. This is the thing.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

It really doesn't, but there is nothing new in Buddhism for one tradition criticizing another based on incomplete understanding. Happens both ways.

Yes, it really does. Why? Because for Chan, being a sutrayāna tradition, wisdom is the transformation of vijñāna.

M

But that is because you pigeon-hole it into that category and assume it to be so. Prajnaparamita is also sutrayana, but that doesn't mean it is merely the transformation of vijnana.

"Men must want to do things out of their own innermost drives. People, not commercial organizations or chains of command, are what make great civilizations work. Every civilization depends upon the quality of the individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness - they cannot work and their civilization collapses."
- A letter to CHOAM, attributed to the Preacher

pueraeternus wrote:
But that is because you pigeon-hole it into that category and assume it to be so. Prajnaparamita is also sutrayana, but that doesn't mean it is merely the transformation of vijnana.

That depends on one's exegetical tradition i.e. yogacara or madhyamaka.

Basically, the Dzogchen critique of sutrayāna in general is that even when sūtrayāna asserts wisdom beyond mind, it does not really succeed.

Even so, the emphasis of Chan is on dharmatā, not wisdom. Chan does not go beyond mind because it merely declares all things dharmatā.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

pueraeternus wrote:
But that is because you pigeon-hole it into that category and assume it to be so. Prajnaparamita is also sutrayana, but that doesn't mean it is merely the transformation of vijnana.

That depends on one's exegetical tradition i.e. yogacara or madhyamaka.

And Chan is not purely yogacara - it is really a mix of several yogacara, madhyamaka and tathagatagarbha, with a Chinese flavor.

Malcolm wrote:
Basically, the Dzogchen critique of sutrayāna in general is that even when sūtrayāna asserts wisdom beyond mind, it does not really succeed.

Personally, I won't say that it does not really succeed, but that it uses different methods. In general, tantra (including Mahamudra and Dzogchen) has more efficient tools, or rather tools that suit a certain mentality.

Malcolm wrote:
Even so, the emphasis of Chan is on dharmatā, not wisdom. Chan does not go beyond mind because it merely declares all things dharmatā.

That is not really going beyond mind.
M

Why do you think so? *Genuine question - this is not a challenge*

"Men must want to do things out of their own innermost drives. People, not commercial organizations or chains of command, are what make great civilizations work. Every civilization depends upon the quality of the individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness - they cannot work and their civilization collapses."
- A letter to CHOAM, attributed to the Preacher

Personally, I won't say that it does not really succeed, but that it uses different methods. In general, tantra (including Mahamudra and Dzogchen) has more efficient tools, or rather tools that suit a certain mentality.

This is a very post-Sakya Pandita view of tantric teachings in general.

Why do you think so? *Genuine question - this is not a challenge*

Even rocks have dharmatā. Resting in the dharmatā of a rock is not really going beyond the rock. In fact, it can't.

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

Andrew108 wrote:
Is this your experience? Really? I would have expected you to say that the experience of bodhicitta, in a Dzogchen sense, cannot be described by words. But you have been able to describe something. To me this demonstrates a flaw in your approach to Dzogchen. I don't mean to be mean spirited. I just think it would be to your benefit to look into these issues a but more.
We need the transmission. The direct introduction. So we need the guru. Then we need to practice. We need to be active and to intelligently reason things out. But we cannot manufacture realization through intellectual inference. This is how it is in Dzogchen. We are going past or beyond mind. This is the thing.

If you note more carefully, the terms I used has no further description, terms such as reason (meaning), it mean I already realized this point, therefore I can bring out as inference, But in order for another to understand what this statement mean, he need to realize this reason (meaning). The statement itself is without flaw but definitive.

If one realized the meaning, that is the same as having passed the stage of transmission or direct introduction in dzogchen. And having realized oneself, the guru is not outside, but this fact does not only happen when one is realized, even when ignorance, the true guru is not outside either. When one depends on oneself using various analysis and arrived at realization of the inner guru, one in fact gained more experience than if one is to rely on another person to point out, the element of hard work is missing there.

As for the assumption that realization cannot be produce through intellectual inference, then one failed to understand that during direct introduction, the teacher is employing intellectual inference too. So what's the problem with intellectual inference, well the same as someone attached to the notion of nonconceptualization, thinking that the ultimate cannot be arrived through conceptual investigation. No one is suggesting the ultimate is constructed of concept, but thinking that one has to be absence of conceptualization in order to realized the ultimate is to mistakenly attempt to unite the means with the body of the ultimate, the failure of recognizing the primordial inseparability and distinction of means and body!